R1, G6: Leafs @ Lighting - May 12th, 7:30pm - CBC, Fan 590

[OldTimeHockey]

Honestly, I don't see any whipping boys this series.

This is nowhere near whipping boy territory and I know he picked up an assist on the 2nd goal last night but I've been pretty underwhelmed with Kase's play in these playoffs. Maybe he's still got some lingering injury stuff but he hasn't played anywhere near his best hockey. I might be tempted to throw Simmonds back into the line-up provided he pinky-swears to Spezza that he won't take any dumb penalties.

Getting 5-6 minutes a night is not going to showcase Kase and what he brings. He's not a fourth liner. He needs to have puck touches and ice time.

 

[L K]

Honestly, I don't see any whipping boys this series.

This is nowhere near whipping boy territory and I know he picked up an assist on the 2nd goal last night but I've been pretty underwhelmed with Kase's play in these playoffs. Maybe he's still got some lingering injury stuff but he hasn't played anywhere near his best hockey. I might be tempted to throw Simmonds back into the line-up provided he pinky-swears to Spezza that he won't take any dumb penalties.

Clifford skates better than Simmonds and is defensively responsible, but he would need a double pinky swear.

Secondary assists don't mean much but Kase does have 3 points in 6 games.  Clifford keeps showing himself as not being able to avoid the stupid play.  I don't trust either Simmonds/Clifford to not make a bad decision.  I don't think the 3 hits that Simmonds/Clifford provide offset the risk that they take a stupid penalty at a stupid point in time.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not going to complain too much about the game last night. As mentioned, Toronto was the better team, except for 3 glaring mistakes.
1-The drop pass by Kerfoot = Goal
2-The lateral entry pass by Mikheyev = Goal
3-The ridiculous aggression by Kerfoot = 5 on 3 = Goal

Other than that, the Leafs played well enough to win, but I felt they sat back in the 3rd and played "not to lose". This team is not built to play a 1-2-2 offense. Especially not against Tampa Bay. Allowing Tampa the ability to leave their zone with speed coupled with a very easy zone entry into Toronto's defensive zone is a recipe for disaster. They played most of the 3rd like a PK. That type of hockey drives me up the wall.

 

[KW Sluggo]

What's the difference between Amber Heard and the Toronto Maple Leafs?

Amber Heard only sh@t the bed once.

 

[L K]

Game 7 set for 7:00 EST start time.  Show up on time...please

 

[4EVRLEAFAN]

Yes it was BS, yes the refs affected the outcome, none of that matters now. Need a huge performance in game 7. End this stupid streak

Kerfoot effected the outcome more than the refs, but yes none of it matters now they have to close it out.

 

[Joe S.]

Am I the only one who thinks the kerfoot high sticking call was BS? Hedman grabbed his stick and hit himself in the face. Kerfoot was just trying to get up.

I can kinda let the first high sticking call go but the second one felt like complete horseshit to me.

 

[louisstamos]

Am I the only one who thinks the kerfoot high sticking call was BS? Hedman grabbed his stick and hit himself in the face. Kerfoot was just trying to get up.

I can kinda let the first high sticking call go but the second one felt like complete horseshit to me.

I'm the opposite - Kerfoot has to be in control of his stick there, but Kampf's penalty was not a penalty.  Even if you consider the shoulder a "high stick," which I see the argument, you have to call Foote on the embellishment, because he threw his head back like he was in a car accident.

 

[bustaheims]

They were both heavily questionable calls for the reasons stated here. Shouldn't be a penalty if you lift someone's stick into your face and it also shouldn't be a penalty if you get hit by a stick below the level where it's legal for that stick to play the puck.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm the opposite - Kerfoot has to be in control of his stick there, but Kampf's penalty was not a penalty.  Even if you consider the shoulder a "high stick," which I see the argument, you have to call Foote on the embellishment, because he threw his head back like he was in a car accident.

Yeah, I agree with you here. The Kampf one, there's no debate about it, that just literally wasn't a penalty. Ref thought Kampf got Foote in the face but he didn't. I've always been iffy about calling examples of what Foote did embellishment. I think most people in general if they had a stick swing that close to their face would just naturally flinch their head back in response. It often doesn't look great in slow-motion though.

The Kerfoot one, by the definition in the rule book, is a penalty even if we don't like it. A player "must be in control and responsible for their stick". There isn't really any exception for when Hedman does what he did. Feels like there probably should be one though.

 

[Zee]

I'm the opposite - Kerfoot has to be in control of his stick there, but Kampf's penalty was not a penalty.  Even if you consider the shoulder a "high stick," which I see the argument, you have to call Foote on the embellishment, because he threw his head back like he was in a car accident.

Yeah, I agree with you here. The Kampf one, there's no debate about it, that just literally wasn't a penalty. Ref thought Kampf got Foote in the face but he didn't. I've always been iffy about calling examples of what Foote did embellishment. I think most people in general if they had a stick swing that close to their face would just naturally flinch their head back in response. It often doesn't look great in slow-motion though.

The Kerfoot one, by the definition in the rule book, is a penalty even if we don't like it. A player "must be in control and responsible for their stick". There isn't really any exception for when Hedman does what he did. Feels like there probably should be one though.

The Kerfoot one likely never happens if the first phantom call is never made since he was hard on the forecheck there trying to steal the puck, but alas, it's all moot now.